The numbers and myths of shot creation

Greg, our Houston Rockets expert, returns to talk about much more serious issue. Is there such a thing as a shot creator?

We’ve all heard announcers discuss the value of the rarest player of all – the shot creator. The shot creator, possessed of abilities beyond those of mere mortals (and even other NBA players) provides two key boons to the teams lucky enough to employ them:

They are able to “get their own shot,” putting points on the board without the benefit of an assist to provide them an open look.

They are able to take difficult shots when the shot clock is winding down.

If you’re a thinking fan, you’ll recognize that simply taking shots is no help to a team at all. In fact most teams get roughly the same number of shots a game. Players that “make their own shot” are really just those that do so without the benefit of an assist. Since big men typically depend on entry passes from guards to help them get a shot off, the working definition of a shot creator that is current in most NBA discourse precludes big men from the outset. Only guards and swingmen score many baskets without the benefit of an assist, and it is generally guards and swingmen who are left with the responsibility of chucking up a bad shot to beat the shot clock on failed possessions.

For looking at players that “create their own shot”, we decided to look at a few factors. First off, are there players who are able to create high-percentage shots on their own, without the benefit of an assist? Here are all the players with at least 100 FGA at the rim this season who have made at least 60% (league average is 62.6%, so this list includes all players who could legitimately claim to help their team by driving the basket) and who manage to score at least 50% of those baskets unassisted:
(Numbers courtesy of http://hoopdata.com/shotstats.aspx)

You might notice that, although two big men do appear on this list, it is populated mostly by guards and swingmen. Aside from the demographics, it seems that there in fact are some players who are able to create high-percentage shots for themselves unassisted.
However, the primary argument in support of the value of shot creators depends upon the second ability noted above: the ability to rescue his team at the end of failed possessions by taking difficult shots to beat the shot clock. Someone has to take these shots — or so the argument goes — and so it is unfair to judge shot creators by their overall shooting percentage, when their percentage is affected adversely by shots which their teammates decline to take.

Without specific data on end-of-the-shot-clock shots, I propose to examine two categories of shots which, between the two of them, include most end-of-the-shot-clock shots as a subset – long, contested 2-point jumpers, and 3-point shots. Although the following two charts only correlate indirectly with the supposed shot creator phenomenon, the data will at least identify players who might be better than average at taking difficult shots. Here are the players with at least 80 FGA this season from 16-23 feet who have made at least 37.5% of those shots (the league average from that range) while having less than 50% of those baskets assisted:

Here is a similar list for 3-point shots, only this time I’ve listed the players with at least 70 attempts who have made at least 33.3% of them and had less than 70% of their makes assisted (I had to adjust the latter number upward, since the vast majority of 3-pointers are assisted):

The latter two lists are dominated entirely by perimeter players. These charts distort the shot creator phenomenon by treating all difficult shots as though they were shots at the end of the shot clock. Clearly, some of the players who attempt a high volume of 16-23 foot jumpers do so not because their team needs them to but because their shot selection is poor and because the NBA incentivizes scoring at the expense of efficiency both in player contracts and in media voting for league awards. However, since all can agree that every team sometimes comes to the end of the shot clock without being able to get a good look, the players in the lists above would be good options in such situations since they are able to convert end-of-the-shot-clock shots with average efficiency or better.

Unfortunately, many of these players come with a high price tag. Since we are unable to determine just how much added benefit accrues from above average conversion of end-of-the-shot-clock shots, it seems unwise to pay the high price for any of these players solely on the basis of their ability to convert these shots. As a pricing guide, consider the 12 players who appear on more than one of the three lists: Chris Paul, Steve Nash, Deron Williams, Kyle Lowry, Kyrie Irving, Russell Westbrook, Derrick Rose, Monta Ellis, Dwayne Wade, Kobe Bryant, Kevin Durant, and LeBron James (who is the only player on all three lists). Kyle Lowry and Derrick Rose are the only players listed above who are available at an affordable price (except for Kyrie Irving, who is still on his rookie contract). The rest are currently making very healthy salaries. Since the effect of a shot creator’s abilities is indeterminate, and may thus be quite small, it would seem preferable to employ one of the cheaper players who is on one of the lists above and who can do things other than score: Luke Ridnour, J.J. Redick, C.J. Watson, Ramon Sessions, Gary Neal, Lou Williams, Isaiah Thomas, Chandler Parsons, and Alonzo Gee fit the bill.

However, the data does not support the shot creator phenomenon in general. There are only 12 players, listed above, who can genuinely be described as “shot creators.” There are a number of other players, not among the 12 shot creators, who make very high salaries and earn accolades primarily by virtue of their “shot-creation abilities”. For example, notice that John Wall, Danny Granger, DeMar DeRozan, and Rodney Stuckey are all among the top 50 scorers in the NBA (measured in points per game), yet fail to appear on any of the lists above. Carmelo Anthony and Nick Young are both highly regarded and well-paid players who appear on only one of the lists, despite the fact that most of their value comes from their scoring ability.

We can also conclude that the two parts of a “shot creator’s” description are not equal. Taking difficult shots at the end of the shot clock, while a part of the game, may not a sufficiently frequent occurrence to override the rest of a player’s contributions. In fact, we cannot even distinguish this specific contribution from poor shot selection, a decidedly negative contribution.

Creating high-percentage shots, on the other hand, is a certain positive. Players who are good at taking the ball to the basket increase their team’s chances of scoring, and thus of winning. As such, while teams might do well to identify players who can create high-percentage shots, it appears that end-of-the-shot-clock shots are indistinguishable from poor shot selection and may in fact be a quite minor part of the game. Teams should not overpay for “shot creators,” nor should shot creation be a viable defense for players with low shooting percentages.
Nota bene: Since “shot creation” is a valued aspect in most NBA front offices, a smart team might be able to increase the market value of their available assets by allowing players like these to have the ball in their hands more as the shot clock is running down. These are low-usage guys who can hit 16-23 ft. unassisted jumpers under the same parameters as before, except with 50-79 attempts:

Shot creation is a very interesting term. It seems more likely it is simply used to mask players that take a lot of shots, many of them questionable. When we look for players who are capable of playing basketball on their own (on offense) without the benefit of a team we con’t come up with many names. We’ll argue — as we always do — that teams would do better to focus on things that win games. It seems this is a better strategy than focusing on vague terminology applied to specific shooting scenarios.

19 Responses to "The numbers and myths of shot creation"

[…] shots because he has to, or because he’s the only one on his team talented enough to do so. “Shot creation” is a vastly overrated concept in the NBA. Secondly, he turns the ball over much more than his peers and is a poor rebounder. Lastly, he is a […]

Interesting article.
I think this is one of those situations where the idea of a shot creator is so intuitive, that it’s really worthwhile to try to find a way to capture it in the data.

I wonder what Synergy type stats would add to the conversation. For instance, who are the most efficient scorers in isolation, end of shot clock type shots (for arguments sake, let’s define end of shot clock as “10 seconds or less remaining on the clock). I think that it, combined with an analysis of how frequently such shots are taken, would shed some light on who could be called a “shot creator”, if there is such a thing.
You could even further extend it to include assists delivered at the end of the clock, so as to include Chris Paul types who are good at drawing attention and then delivering the ball to an open guy.
And even after crunching those numbers, you could then try to determine how much overall impact it has in the final outcome of games, to judge how important shot creation is

The Shot-Creator idea is intuitive but completely wrong, at least the way most people view it.

Guys like Melo are called “shot-creators” even though the shots he’s taking are not high-percentage shots. I think many fans and analysts think that being able to get off lots of shots is a rare skill, when in reality almost every NBA wing is capable of this, but most of them would get yanked by their coaches if they tried.

I would also point out that end-of-shot-clock situations are almost always the fault of a player who’s dicking around with the ball too much, usually in an isolation. It’s very uncommon for a team to be zipping the ball around with good ball movement and be denied by a hustling defense, except perhaps in end-game possessions in close games (even then, teams iso way too much). So, many of these “shot-creators” force the necessity for these tough shots themselves, through their inefficient play.

I’m not sure I follow what you are trying to get at here. Clearly, there are players who can generate there own offense without the need of a teammate to draw defensive attention or the use of a screen. That’s a good thing.

The methodology you use here ignores ball-screens.

If you are saying “any NBA player can ‘create’ a shot, good or bad,” well, that’s obviously true. If you are saying “high-usage one-on-one guys might shoot too much,” that’s also a fair point. I just don’t see what your data are getting at here based on the assumptions at the start of the article.

Having a cut off point for drives to the basket of 60% doesn’t really seem to make sense, if you’re looking at efficient shots. If someone shoots 55% there, even though it’s below the league average, it’s still probably a good shot. Someone could easily be seen as a shot creator if they get to the rim at a ridiculous rate, and shoot below league average there, as it’s such a good shot. It’s entirely possible that a player could be below average in all 3 areas and still be efficient and a shot creator if he shoots a majority of his shots from 3 feet away/on layups.

btw. I also haven’t really understood what you actually trying to say in the article. In the start you make fun that shoot creators are so “rare”. And than you conclude that (good) shot creators are actually rare. :)

I guess most people would agree that shot creators who shoot inefficient are not helping to win a game, especially if they do that all the time, not just in crunch time.

Hanif, I think you would be interested in a series Arturo did at his old blog which including passing ability in an “offense creation” metric. Obviously Arturo’s measure is far more useful, since a player who can improve the team’s offense is far more valuable than a guy who can simply “get his own shot.”

Motherwell,
Yes, that’s the common WoW response. It’s not really fair, because even proponents of “shot creation” would probably admit that Team FGA are dependent on pace and offensive rebounding ability. I’ve tried to take the argument for shot creation on its own terms. This way, it’s not so easy for efficiency to win the debate without even having to engage the usage argument.

ElGee,
Okay, if you want to emphasize ball screens that’s fine; as far as I know, just about everybody is considering screens to be a minor contribution, whether they’re using advanced metrics or just plain old ppg. The points you identify are minor points, but the main point is that creating high-percentage shots is good, but end-of-the-shot-clock shots are indistinguishable from bad shots, so don’t give a max contract to a guy who can only take difficult shots at above-average efficiency. You can’t get your money back for it.

Daniel
1) 60% is actually below the league average at the rim. I can’t accept that shooting far below the league average is helpful, because it’s precisely the argument that allows shot-creation rhetoric to get out of control: “Allen Iverson shoots 38% from the field, but even him shooting 38% is better than a shot clock violation (0%), which his teammates would accumulate more often without having a star to take difficult shots.”

(Daniel, cont’d)
2) “It’s entirely possible that a player could be below average in all 3 areas and still be efficient and a shot creator if he shoots a majority of his shots from 3 feet away/on layups.”

I agree, but then we’re jut favoring efficiency over usage. The whole premise of the shot creator argument that we’re trying to measure is that FG% is not an accurate measure the shooting contribution of some players. Using players with high FG% who take a lot of short to mid range shots doesn’t really defeat that argument.

Paulmuell,
I understand that 82games has some useful data, but this does not give us what we need. There is a sizable difference between an open dunk with 9 seconds left on the shot clock and a contested 22-footer with 1 second left on the shot clock. The data you refer to treat them as part of the same category. I have preferred to take the two most frequent categories of difficult shots as a rough approximation of end-of-the-shot-clock shots because, despite the potential utility of the 82games material, we have no way of actually distinguishing forced end-of-the-shot-clock shots from other shots.

Steve Novak is shooting great these days. However, if you watch him play, it quickly becomes obvious he’s more of catch and shoot guy. He can’t really create a shot off the dribble and be as effective.

If you had 5 Steve Novaks, I suspect the team would not be very good on offense even though 1 Steven Novak is incredibly efficient within a team context.

I don’t know how to value that.

I know if I had a choice I’d rather have Novak taking an open outside shot than almost anyone else in the NBA, but I don’t want a team of Novaks.

That limitation must have some negative value on offense.

The way I see it, it’s partially the creators that allow players like Novak to flourish. Both types combine to produce high efficiency offenses, but the shooters get most of the credit in the efficiency stats. Hope that makes sense.

@ Greg Steele
I agree that the numbers are not perfect, but they shut be better than the general numbers you used.
The more the shot clock is winding down, the less likely it gets that you “steel” a good shot from someone else. So the likelihood of more difficult shots (or more risky assists) increases. It is certainly true, that you still have a bias, since catch and shoot guys are unlikely to get the ball at the end of the shot clock, unlike they have an open look. But all these problems are exactly the reason why I believe that boxscores don’t tell the entire story.

So basically between Arturo’s “Shot Creation” series and this article, you’re basically saying that there IS such a thing as shot creation. This is different than this forum has typically stated, but I think correct. It stands to reason that quicker, more athletic and nimble guys will be able to get up reasonable shots more easily. That some players are more efficient in converting those also makes sense.

Further, I’d say that there are probably degrees of ability for the toughest shots possible. We all know Carmelo shoots way too much, and isn’t that great an open shot shooter. But it’s also possible that he’s amongst the best in hitting extremely well defended non-open shots. That he resorts to that inefficient shot far too frequently is absolutely one of his flaws, but there still may be an underlying ability.

Maybe the flaw in the thinking here is with the NBA community in that most coaches believe that, in so called crunch time, they have to get the ball to their best player and isolate him on one side, giving him a chance to “create” his own shot. They do this rather than relying on player movement and ball movement to create a good shot in crunch time.